Mr ABBOTT (Minister for Health and Ageing) (4:23 PM) —The Regional Partnerships program is a good program. So far under this program some $190 million has been allocated to some 740 projects. All of the projects have been considered by the local area consultative committees and, while the area consultative committees are not perfect, they are a good way of ensuring genuine local support for these projects. As the member for Hotham has pointed out, there has been a handful of disappointing projects, but that does not invalidate an essentially excellent program that has certainly helped to boost the prospects of regional Australia.

We have had from members opposite, and indeed from members on the crossbench, a series of allegations that this program has been rorted. But they have gone beyond that to lead to a claim from the member for New England that an offence of an even more serious nature has been committed—that is, as part of the circumstances of the granting of a Regional Partnerships program in his electorate he was offered a corrupt inducement to leave politics. That is what I wish to turn to now. I refer to a statement by the member for New England in this House. He made this statement late last year in an adjournment debate. He placed on record, as he told the House, an account of a meeting that he claimed took place on 19 May 2004 at 10.30 am in the office of Tamworth businessman Mr Greg Maguire. These are the words of the member for New England:

So there was an accusation of a rort.

Ms Gillard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to page 500 of House of Representatives Practice, which says that if you wish to ‘reflect upon the character or conduct of a member’ you need to do that by way of a substantive motion and that, in speaking to that motion—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! I am listening carefully to what the minister is saying, and the minister has not reflected on the member for New England.

Mr ABBOTT —I am simply quoting the words of the member for New England in this parliament. He went on to say:

Mr Maguire, in the opinion of the member for New England, is such an outstanding person that he told the House:

That is a very serious allegation made by the member for New England against the then Deputy Prime Minister of this country. People are perfectly entitled to make claims, but they should not make claims without strong evidence. They certainly cannot make claims of that nature without evidence and claim to keep their own reputation and their own honour.

Mr Katter —They don’t come in here lying either.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Kennedy will withdraw that comment.

Mr Katter —I withdraw the comment.

Mr ABBOTT —The evidence—

Ms Gillard —Mr Deputy Speaker, further on that point of order, the only natural construction of the words that the Leader of the House has just spoken is that he is alleging that the member for New England made a false claim. That is a matter that should be dealt with by way of a substantive motion. He is accusing the member of an act of dishonesty and of misleading the House. That must be dealt with by way of a substantive motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am listening carefully to what the minister is saying, and he is in order.

Mr ABBOTT —The claims that the member for New England made were submitted to the Australian Federal Police.

Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, when you are considering whether this MPI is being used as a device to traduce the reputation of the honourable member for New England—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —What’s your point?

Mr Price —Can I point out that in the grievance debate a similar attempt was made on the very same matter. The same points of order were taken—that is, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to move a substantive motion, and we will then have a proper debate. But this is an MPI about rural and regional Australia—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Chifley will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I am listening carefully, and the minister has not reflected on the member for New England.

Mr ABBOTT —I simply point out that when the Australian Federal Police considered this matter they concluded:

This matter was also considered by the Senate committee. The majority senators—that is, the Australian Labor Party and Democrat senators, who had no vested interest in protecting the then Deputy Prime Minister—concluded:

that is, the evidence of Mr Windsor—

The Democrat and the ALP senators on that committee went on to say:

evidence that the member for Windsor did not have—

or for that matter, the then Deputy Prime Minister—

Here we have very serious claims made in this place by the member for New England, for which he was not able to bring strong evidence. He was not even able to convince Labor and Democrat members of a Senate committee. Independent members of this parliament like to suggest that they are not contaminated by partisanship. They like to suggest that they are in some way above the ordinary run of politics. But what we have seen in the conduct of the member for New England in this matter is a slipping of that mask. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Independent members, on the basis of this conduct, are no different and no better—perhaps in some ways worse—than the rest of us, because they do not have the sorts of responsibilities to a team that the rest of us have in this place.

I am perfectly prepared to concede that perhaps on this matter the member for New England had a rush of blood to the head—that is, claims by the member for New England were an aberration or a lapse. Even decent human beings can sometimes do dishonourable things. But let me say that it is a very dishonourable thing to make a most scurrilous claim against someone and not be able to back it up with hard evidence. I do not expect the member for New England to necessarily like the member for Gwydir, the former Deputy Prime Minister; I just expect him to treat him with fairness. He has fundamentally failed to do that in this matter. He has made a claim against the member for Gwydir, the most scurrilous claim that it is possible to make against an honourable man, and he has been incapable of backing it up with any serious evidence.

If the member for New England wishes to maintain his reputation as an honourable man, there is only one thing that he can do. He should apologise to the member for Gwydir and he should withdraw the accusation that he made against him, for which he was unable to bring any substantial evidence. He could not even convince Democrat and ALP members of the Senate. I certainly do not want to stamp my feet in this place and go on with the kind of confected indignation that we see so often. I simply want to say that in this respect the member for New England has been far from his best self. He has been far from the kind of upright human being that I am sure he would wish to be and that I am sure his constituents would wish him to be as their local member of parliament. I say to the member for New England: stop the giggling, stop the interjecting, seriously reflect on what you have done—the injustice you have caused—to the former Deputy Prime Minister of this country. If you had the decency that you would like to think you have, you would apologise and you would withdraw.